Forty-nine thousand Americans kill themselves every year, mainly because America has demonized and/or outlawed everything that could cheer them up, like laughing gas and cocaine, which Freud knew was a cure for depression.
I am one of those heretics who says that it is a category error to put materialists and doctors (and especially materialist doctors!) in charge of mind and mood medicine1. The benefits of illegal drugs come about through holistic processes, whereas materialist science is all about judging drugs outside of all context. This is why our "betters" in the medical industry are so laughably out of touch with reality on these subjects, as for instance when Dr. Robert Glatter 23 has to ask the question whether laughing gas could REALLY help the depressed! Laughing gas, for god's sake! (Gee, I wonder if it would help for a depressed person to feel wonderful?? What a poser??!) While they're studying that proposition in the laboratory, our materialists might also want to study whether having a "cold one" after work REALLY helps people relax! Or whether parents are REALLY helping their kids by giving them a hug now and then! What tough questions!!! These are the kinds of questions that only a DOCTOR could answer -- but then they are also the kinds of questions that only a doctor would even THINK of asking!!!
And so we are told that drugs like cocaine and laughing gas and opium 4 have no positive uses! What absurdity! What gaslighting 5 ! What they really mean to say is that those drugs cannot be shown to "work" in the reductive fashion that scientists demand of a drug. But so what? They work in an holistic fashion that doctors refuse to understand -- not just because these doctors are typically materialists, but also because they insist on toeing the line when it comes to Drug War orthodoxy, according to which drugs must be supposed to have no beneficial uses whatsoever. And so they practice their pharmacological colonialism. And so they gaslight the depressed. By demanding proof under a microscope, they elevate themselves to the role of experts on human emotions -- and tell the actual users of the drugs that "Hey, WE know more about how you feel and how you SHOULD feel than you do! Don't tell us what works for YOU -- WE'LL tell YOU what works for YOU!"
In case doctors are someday interested, though, here is what I mean by the holistic benefits of drugs. Drugs like cocaine help one get work done -- in the same way that coffee does, without jangling one's nerves. This means that one feels a sense of accomplishment in life and so feels better about themselves. Get it, doc? From this fact alone, a whole raft of knock-on benefits begin to accrue. The cocaine user stops procrastinating, they become more outgoing, they remember that family member's birthday that they might have forgotten -- or else have been too depressed to worry about. In other words, doc, the drug use establishes a virtuous circle. Any drug that inspires and elates can establish such a virtuous circle -- not because it moves chemicals about in a way that flatters materialist expectations, but because the positive feelings (and mood-improving anticipation) that the user feels creates a virtuous circle full of knock-on benefits! Freud understood this: he understood that cocaine was a godsend for the depressed67. But the doctors of his time saw nothing but evil in the drug -- and no wonder: They knew that their jobs were in jeopardy if depression ceased to be an epidemic. Better that hundreds of millions of the depressed should go without a cure than doctors should lose their jobs!
I feel silly pointing out such basic psychological truths to adults, that inspiration helps, that feeling good helps -- but these are truths that our behaviorist doctors ignore in their effort to medicalize and pathologize human behavior and thus set themselves up as experts in "curing" our psychological diseases. Such doctors help demonize cocaine by focusing only on misuse by a vast MINORITY of users, exactly as if we were to study alcohol use by focusing on drunkards. They completely ignored the needs of the depressed. We were not stakeholders, it seems. They never asked the depressed how THEY felt about using cocaine. Instead, they trashed the drug by associating it with only downsides -- and thereby utterly destroyed its reputation for healing. In so doing, they ensured their own careers. They ensured that depression would be "a thing" for years to come. They could now set themselves up as the well-paid experts for treating such "illnesses," the illnesses that they themselves had helped to bring about.
This reminds me of the Three Stooges episode in which the trio secretly releases mice into a mansion and then knocks on the front door to ask the lady of the house if she requires exterminating services.
Many psychedelic fans are still drug warriors at heart. They just think that a nice big exception should be carved out for the drugs that they're suddenly finding useful.
Americans are far more fearful of psychoactive drugs than is warranted by either anecdote or history. We require 100% safety before we will re-legalize any "drug" -- which is a safety standard that we do not enforce for any other risky activity on earth.
The December Scientific American features a story called "The New Nuclear Age," about a trillion-dollar plan to add 100s of ICBM's to 5 states, which an SA editorial calls "kick me" signs. This Neanderthal plan comes from pols who think that compassion-boosting drugs are evil!
The massive use of plea deals lets prosecutors threaten drug suspects into giving up their rights to a fair trial.
In a free future, newspapers will have philosophers on their staffs to ensure that said papers are not inciting consequence-riddled hysteria through a biased coverage of drug-related mishaps.
Proof that materialism is wrong is "in the pudding." It is why scientists are not calling for the use of laughing gas and MDMA by the suicidal. Because they refuse to recognize anything that's obvious. They want their cures to be demonstrated under a microscope.
We deal with "drug" risks differently than any other risk. Aspirin kills thousands every year. The death rate from free climbing is huge. But it's only with "drug use" that we demand zero deaths (a policy which ironically causes far more deaths than necessary).
As great as it is, "Synthetic Panics" by Philip Jenkins was only tolerated by academia because it did not mention drugs in the title and it contains no explicit opinions about drugs. As a result, many drug law reformers still don't know the book exists.
I know. I'm on SNRIs. But SSRIs and SNRIs are both made with materialist presumptions in mind: that the best way to change people is with a surgical strike at one-size-fits-all chemistry. That's the opposite of the shamanic holism that I favor.
The front page of every mycology club page should feature a protest of drug laws that make the study of mycology illegal in the case of certain shrooms. But no one protests. Their silence makes them drug war collaborators because it serves to normalize prohibition.
(up)